GeoSPARQL Standards Working Group Meeting Minutes

Meeting Details

Meeting Date: 09/02/2022

Meeting Time: 2030 UTC

Meeting Location: GoToMeeting

Attendees

Attendee Moniker
Timo Homburg TH
Matthew Perry MP
Frans Knibbe FK
Linda van den Brink LV
Nicholas Car NC
Paul Cripps PC

Note Takers

  • MP

Action Items From Last Meetings

| Done? | Item | Responsible | Due Date | | —- | —- | —- | — |

Discussion Items

Time Item Who Notes
2035 Intro JA Call for Patents
  • None known
Roll Call
  • Attendees recorded in minutes
  • Attendees confirmed vocally
2040 Any business before going through PRs MP
  • FK: JSON-FG - email from Peter JSON-FG SWG requested review from GeoSPARQL SWG.
  • Hold off on this one until later in case Peter joins
2045 Running through PRs All
  • [#284](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/pull/284) Fixing minor issue, MP to review
  • [#283](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/pull/283) MP to review
  • [#282](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/pull/282)
    • NC: we have mappings to other ontologies why not mapping to other query languages?
    • FK: it would be easier to update if it was a separate document
    • NC: the mapping should be stable for the current versions of GeoSPARQL and CQL
    • LV: makes sense to me as an annex
    • MP: also like it as an annex
    • TH: ok with annex
    • MP to review

Running through issues All
  • [#199](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/199) FK: waiting on Gobe for official OGC IRIs
  • [#112](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/112) NC to review
  • [#258](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/258) No additional comments, SWG decided to postpone due to backwards compatibility issues.
  • [#269](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/269)
    • FK: will be resolved with issue [#278](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/278)
    • FK to propose a paragraph in the spec for issue 278
  • [#238](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/238)
    • NC: planning to propose some 3D extensions for 1.2 - makes sense to not highlight 3D
    • NC: options (1) do nothing, (2) make a greater claim, (3) give examples
    • FK: potential to break existing implementations
    • NC: sensible to consider removing 2/3D columns from table
    • NC: we need some statement about 3D support
    • FK: this will also be handled by issue 278
  • [#170](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/170) FK: this is to be done when releasing 1.1
  • [#115](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/115) Probably done. NC to check
  • [#100](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/100) Waiting on OGC
  • [#247](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/247) Will be closed by PR
  • [#182](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/182) Will be closed by PR
  • [#177](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/177)
    • FK: why target geometries via other properties instead of rdf:type Geometry?
    • NC: we could also add rdf:type class targeting to pick up solo Geometries
    • FK to add class targeting
  • [#256](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/256) NC to look at it
  • [#61](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/61) To be done later until spec is finished
  • [#202](https://github.com/opengeospatial/ogc-geosparql/issues/202)
    • NC: We need some text about the geometry types supported by different serialization
    • TH: GML has some types not supported by other serialization
    • NC: Mapping tables for each literal type would be too much
    • FK: May also be resolved by issue 278
2154 Other business All JSON-FG
  • PV: Request for GeoSPARQL SWG to review JSON-FG to make sure it doesn’t prevent querying with GeoSPARQL
  • FK: GeoSPARQL based on SF, so geometry types outside of SF cannot be handled in GeoSPARQL 1.1.
  • PV: supporting GeoJSON may be enough
  • NC: we only look at the geometry part of GeoJSON
  • NC: we can write comments on where the mappings would be
  • PV: we want GeoSPARQL to understand what is in the WHERE key
  • NC: two issues (1) how to represent JSON-FG literal, (2) what to do with it in the functions
2200     MEETING ENDS

Action Items

| # | Item | Responsible | Due Date | | —- | —- | —- | —- |